Order Code RL34324
Campaign Finance: Legislative Developments and
Policy Issues in the 110th Congress
Updated March 6, 2008
R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

---

Campaign Finance: Legislative Developments and
Policy Issues in the 110th Congress
Summary
This report provides an overview of major legislative and policy developments
related to campaign finance during the 110th Congress. The report discusses
legislative and oversight hearings and floor action during the period. It also explores
major policy issues that are relevant for Congress, but which have largely occurred
away from Capitol Hill. Approximately 50 bills devoted primarily to campaign
finance have been introduced in the 110th Congress, but none have become law.
However, a new lobbying and ethics law, the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act (HLOGA; P.L. 110-81), contains campaign finance provisions
related to “bundled” contributions and campaign travel. That measure is the only
campaign finance-related bill to become law during the 110th Congress.
Beyond lobbying and ethics bills, the House and Senate have largely focused on
different campaign finance issues during the 110th Congress. The House has passed
two bills containing campaign finance provisions. H.R. 2630 would restrict
campaign and leadership political action committee (PAC) payments to candidate
spouses. In addition, a provision in the House-passed version of an appropriations
bill (H.R. 3093) would have prohibited spending Justice Department funds on
criminal enforcement of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)
“electioneering communication” provision. However, the language was not included
in the FY2008 consolidated appropriations law (P.L. 110-161). In the Senate, a bill
(S. 223) requiring electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports was reported from
the Rules and Administration Committee but has not received floor consideration.
During the spring and summer of 2007, the committee also held hearings on
coordinated party expenditures (S. 1091) and congressional public financing
legislation (S. 1285). The Committee on House Administration and the Senate Rules
and Administration Committee have also held hearings on automated political
telephone calls (also known as “robo calls” or “auto calls”), a subject that is related
to campaign finance.
Two non-legislative items are also particularly noteworthy. First, following a
Senate impasse over four nominees to the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
during the first session of the 110th Congress, the Commission now has just two
sitting members. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), that number is
insufficient to approve enforcement actions, issue advisory opinions, and make other
policy decisions. Additional confirmed or recess-appointed commissioners are
necessary to bring the FEC to at least a four-member majority required to make
policy decisions. Second, in November 2007, the FEC approved new rules regarding
electioneering communications. Those rules were promulgated to comport with a
June 2007 Supreme Court ruling (in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin
Right to Life, Inc.).
This report will be updated periodically throughout the 110th Congress to reflect
major events or legislative action. It supercedes CRS Report RS22732, Campaign
Finance: Developments in the 110th Congress.

---

Contents
Brief Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A Note on the Current Policy Environment: FEC Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Campaign Finance Legislation in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Campaign Finance Provisions in HLOGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Bundling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Campaign Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Senate Activity on Other Campaign Finance Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
House Activity on Other Campaign Finance Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Other Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Electioneering Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Hearings on Automated Political Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

---

Campaign Finance: Legislative
Developments and Policy Issues in the
110th Congress
Brief Historical Overview
Federal campaign finance law emphasizes limits on contributions, restrictions
on funding sources, and public disclosure of information about campaign fundraising
and spending. These goals and others are embodied in the 1971 Federal Election
Campaign Act (FECA), which remains the cornerstone of the nation’s campaign
finance law.1 Major FECA amendments (in 1974, 1976, and 1979) expanded the
presidential public-financing system and placed limits on campaign contributions and
expenditures.2
After these post-Watergate efforts to reduce the risk or appearance of corruption,
campaign finance received relatively little legislative attention until the late 1990s.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — also known as “BCRA” or
“McCain-Feingold” for its principal Senate sponsors — constituted the first major
change to the nation’s campaign finance laws since 1979.3 Among other points,
BCRA banned large corporate and union donations to political parties (soft money)
in federal elections and restricted certain political advertising preceding elections
(electioneering communications). Much of the policy activity since that time has
emphasized implementing BCRA, particularly at the FEC and in the courts.
A Note on the Current Policy Environment:
FEC Status
During the first session of the 110th Congress, the Senate considered four
nominations to the six-seat FEC. Amid controversy surrounding one nominee and
over whether the nominations should be considered separately or as a group, the
1 2 U.S.C. 431 § et seq.
2 The Supreme Court struck down mandatory spending limits, except those accepted
voluntarily in exchange for public campaign financing, in its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo
decision. See CRS Report RL30669, Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First
Amendment: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny, by L. Paige Whitaker.
3 On BCRA, see P.L. 107-155; 116 Stat. 81. For additional information, see CRS Report
RL31402, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Summary and Comparison with
Previous Law, by Joseph E. Cantor and L. Paige Whitaker. Cantor is now retired from
CRS. Contact R. Sam Garrett with questions regarding Mr. Cantor’s portfolio.

---

CRS-2
Senate declined to confirm or reject the nominations. As a result, the recess
appointments of Commissioners Robert D. Lenhard (D), Steven T. Walther (D), and
Hans A. von Spakovsky (R) expired. All three had also been nominated to full terms
at the agency. Those nominations, which are separate from the recess appointments,
remain pending. At this time, only Commissioners David M. Mason (R) and Ellen
L. Weintraub (D) remain in office. Both were previously confirmed by the Senate
and may continue serving in holdover status following their now-expired terms.
The FEC’s current status is significant because, under FECA, at least four
commissioners must vote affirmatively to approve, among other things, agency rules,
enforcement decisions, and advisory opinions. Accordingly, although the
Commission’s operating status does not directly affect congressional campaign
finance activity, the agency cannot officially implement or interpret past or future
legislation without at least four commissioners in office.4
Remaining commissioners and staff continue to carry out some duties and can
provide general information to the regulated community and the public. Federal
campaign finance law and FEC regulations remain in effect. Additional discussion
appears in another CRS product.5
Campaign Finance Legislation
in the 110th Congress
Legislative activity regarding campaign finance has occurred on two fronts
during the 110th Congress. First, and most notably, the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act (HLOGA) contains some campaign finance provisions, but the law
is primarily devoted to lobbying and ethics. HLOGA is the only legislation changing
campaign financing policy to become law during the 110th Congress. Second,
various other bills that emphasize campaign finance have received hearings or floor
votes, but none have become law. Overall, approximately 50 bills that would affect
campaign finance policy have been introduced in the 110th Congress.6 The following
discussion provides additional details on campaign finance bills that have been the
subject of hearings or floor votes during the 110th Congress.

Campaign Finance Provisions in HLOGA
S. 1, which became P.L. 110-81 on September 14, 2007, contains two
significant campaign finance provisions: one related to bundling and another related
4 This assumes that at least four commissioners could reach agreement.
5 CRS Report RS22780, The Federal Election Commission (FEC) With Fewer than Four
Members: Overview of Policy Implications, by R. Sam Garrett.
6 This total is approximate because of varying ways in which “campaign finance” could be
classified. The total does not include FEC appropriations legislation. On that topic, see the
FEC portion of CRS Report RL33998, Financial Services and General Government
(FSGG): FY2008 Appropriations, Garrett L. Hatch, Coordinator.

---

CRS-3
to travel aboard private aircraft.7 Both have been seen as sources of potential abuse
in the past. The law also prohibits Member attendance at presidential convention
events in their honor if registered lobbyists or “private entit[ies]” that hire lobbyists
pay for the events.8 It also requires additional disclosure about lobbyists’
contributions (exceeding $200) to political committees, presidential inaugural
committees, and presidential libraries.9
FEC rulemaking (discussed below) is required to implement the bundling and
campaign travel portions of HLOGA (sections 204 and 601 respectively). Although
the travel section took effect upon the bill’s enactment, the FEC in late 2007 adopted
rules providing its interpretation of the law. HLOGA requires the FEC to promulgate
regulations implementing the bundling provision within six months of enactment
(which would be March 14, 2008).10
Bundling. “Bundling” refers to a campaign fundraising practice in which an
intermediary — often a lobbyist — either receives contributions and passes them to
a campaign or is credited with soliciting contributions that a campaign receives
directly. Before HLOGA became law, although FEC regulations on “earmarked”
contributions technically restricted bundling, they were viewed as largely
inapplicable to designated campaign fundraisers, including certain lobbyists. In
response, HLOGA requires disclosure of bundling activities by registered lobbyists.
Specifically, political committees (candidate committees, party committees, and
PACs) must report to the FEC the name, address, and employer of each Lobbying
Disclosure Act (LDA)-registered lobbyist “reasonably known” to have made at least
two bundled contributions totaling more than $15,000 during specified six-month
reporting periods.11 HLOGA only requires disclosure of bundling by registered
lobbyists — not other fundraisers. Therefore, HLOGA will provide more
transparency than was previously available about which lobbyists arrange bundled
contributions. However, it does not mandate disclosure of bundled contributions that
do not meet the time and monetary thresholds discussed above or require information
about bundling by non-lobbyists.
FEC Rulemaking. The FEC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
on the bundling issue on October 30, 2007.12 Most notably, and consistent with
HLOGA, the FEC’s proposed rules would require political committees to report
bundled contributions if the same source arranged or was credited with arranging two
7 See also CRS Report RL34166, Lobby Law and Ethics Rules Changes in the 110th
Congress, by Jack Maskell. That report provides additional discussion and analysis.
8 121 Stat. 753; 121 Stat. 767. Exceptions exist for presidential or vice-presidential
candidates.
9 121 Stat. 743.
10 121 Stat. 744-121 Stat. 745.
11 121 Stat. 744. On LDA, see 2 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.
12 Federal Election Commission, “Reporting Contributions Bundled by Lobbyists,
Registrants and the PACs of Lobbyists and Registrants,” 72 Federal Register 62600,
November 6, 2007. Although the Commission approved the NPRM on October 30, it was
not published in the Federal Register until November 6, 2007.

---

CRS-4
or more contributions totaling at least $15,000 during a six-month period. (The FEC
also solicited comments about an alternative proposal for quarterly reporting.)13 The
proposed rules would also add the term “lobbyist/registrant PACs” — those
committees “established or controlled” by registered lobbyists — to existing
examples of political committees subject to FECA regulation and bundling
disclosure.14
Despite some specificity, the NPRM did not address how all reporting issues
would be resolved. Rather, throughout the document, the Commission posed several
questions about a range of issues, such as how widely disclosure requirements should
apply and how committees should determine whether contributions were bundled.15
Parts of the NPRM suggested that bundling disclosure could apply beyond lobbyists
per se; the FEC asked whether Congress intended for bundling disclosure to apply
only to contributions arranged by registered lobbyists (who would be known as
“lobbyist/registrants” under proposed rules), or also to fundraising by other actors.
The latter could include non-lobbyist employees at lobbying organizations or hosts
of fundraisers at which bundling occurs.16 Several interested parties, including
Members of Congress, submitted comments responding to the NPRM. The
Commission has not yet scheduled a hearing on the issue.
As noted previously, HLOGA requires the FEC to issue bundling rules within
six months of the law’s enactment (which would be March 14, 2008). Those rules
would take effect within three months.17 However, also as noted previously, the FEC
cannot issue regulations — including the bundling rules — without four affirmative
votes. If the FEC cannot or does not approve the bundling rules by the time frame
specified in HLOGA, the agency could nonetheless do so at a future date. This
scenario would imply that bundling reports would not be filed as early in the 2008
election cycle as intended in the law, or perhaps not at all, but would begin once the
FEC issued final rules.
Campaign Travel. HLOGA restricts campaign travel on private,
non-commercial aircraft (e.g., charter jets). Before HLOGA became law, political
committees were permitted to reimburse those providing private aircraft at the rate
of first-class travel as long as commensurate first-class commercial service were
available for the route flown.18 Reimbursement at non-discounted coach or charter
rates was required if commensurate first-class service were unavailable on that route.
13 Ibid., pp. 62606-62607.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., pp. 62603-6204.
16 Ibid., pp. 6202-6203.
17 Under HLOGA, bundling reporting begins “after the expiration of the 3-month period
which begins on the date that the regulations required to be promulgated by the Federal
Election Commission under [FEC rulemaking authority specified in FECA] become final.”
121 Stat. 746.
18 Campaigns must reimburse service-providers for travel (or other services) so that vendors
do not make, or campaigns do not receive, prohibited “in-kind” contributions that are
excessively expensive, come from prohibited sources, or both.

---

CRS-5
Under the new law, Senators, candidates, and staff may continue to travel on private
aircraft only if they reimburse the entity providing the aircraft for the “pro rata share
of the fair market value” for rental or charter of a comparable aircraft, which could
be well above the old first-class rate that applied to most flights. Unlike their Senate
counterparts, House Members, candidates, and staff are “substantially banned” from
flying aboard private, non-commercial aircraft, as the law precludes reimbursements
for such flights.19
FEC Rulemaking. Under rules adopted by the FEC on December 14, 2007,
all Senate, presidential, and vice-presidential campaign travel must be reimbursed at
the “pro-rata share” of the charter rate, regardless of the route flown.20 Consistent
with HLOGA, political committees related to House of Representatives candidates
are prohibited from making reimbursements for campaign travel aboard private
aircraft, which essentially bans such travel. The “pro-rata share” reimbursement
standard for Senate, presidential, and vice-presidential travel is based on the number
of candidate committees (i.e., candidate campaigns) represented on a flight. If more
than one candidate is represented on a flight, reimbursement would be shared among
the relevant candidate committees.
Specifically, political committees must provide reimbursement for all campaign
travelers’ shares of the “normal and usual charter fare or rental charge for travel on
a comparable aircraft or comparable size.”21 These requirements also apply to travel
on behalf of PACs, including leadership PACs, and party committees, although
candidate committees represented on the flight would be responsible for covering
costs for those travelers.22 Travel aboard government aircraft must also be
reimbursed at the per-person charter rate or at the rate the government entity
providing the aircraft specifies for “private travel.”23 Certain exceptions exist for
travel aboard aircraft owned or leased by a candidate or an immediate family
member, but reimbursement for campaign travel is nonetheless required.24
Before publishing the final travel rules in the Federal Register, the Commission
must approve an “explanation and justification” (E&J) document summarizing the
19 121 Stat. 774; and CRS Report RL34166, Lobby Law and Ethics Rules Changes in the
110th Congress, by Jack Maskell.
20 The new rules have not been published in the Federal Register. The rules are available
on the Commission’s website. See “Draft Final Rule on Campaign Travel,” FEC open
meeting agenda document no. 07-94, at [http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2007/mtgdoc07-94.pdf].
21 On the quoted material see FEC, “Draft Final Rule on Campaign Travel,” p. 7.
22 The FEC reportedly chose this arrangement out of concern that party and PAC officials
providing travel reimbursement could indirectly subsidize candidate travel, which HLOGA
sought to restrict (telephone consultation between Duane Pugh, Deputy Director,
Congressional Affairs, FEC, and R. Sam Garrett, January 10, 2008). Conversely, under the
new rules, candidates are arguably subsidizing party or PAC travel. The FEC could clarify
this issue when it considers a related “explanation and justification” document, which is
discussed in the text of this report.
23 FEC, “Draft Final Rule on Campaign Travel,” pp. 8-9.
24 Ibid., pp. 9-10.

---

CRS-6
public comments the FEC received and the agency’s reasoning in interpreting the
law. These documents typically provide additional information about how the
Commission intends to enforce the new rules and what those rules mean in practice.
Although the FEC approved final travel rules in December 2007, it did not formally
consider an E&J document. That document cannot be approved without affirmative
votes from at least four commissioners.
Senate Activity on Other Campaign Finance Legislation
Other than HLOGA, no campaign finance measures have passed the Senate
during the 110th Congress. However, the Rules and Administration Committee has
held hearings on four bills. First, on March 28, 2007, the committee held a hearing
on S. 223 (Feingold), which would require Senate campaign committees (including
candidate committees and party committees) to file campaign finance disclosure
reports electronically. Currently, Senate campaign committees are the only federal
political committees not required to do so. The bill has not received floor
consideration, despite attempts to bring it up by unanimous consent. Second, on
April 18, 2007, the committee considered S. 1091 (Corker), which would lift existing
limits on coordinated expenditures that political parties may make on behalf of
candidate campaigns. S. 1091 remains in committee. Third, on June 20, 2007, the
committee held a hearing on S. 1285 (Durbin), which proposes a voluntary system
to publicly finance Senate campaigns.25 That bill also has not been subject to
additional legislative action. Finally, the committee considered S. 2624 (Feinstein)
at a February 27, 2008, hearing on automated political telephone calls. That topic is
discussed below in more detail. The bill has not been subject to additional legislative
action.
House Activity on Other Campaign Finance Legislation
The House has passed two bills (in addition to lobbying reform measures)
containing campaign finance provisions. First, H.R. 3093, the House version of the
FY2008 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill,
contained an amendment sponsored by Representative Pence that would have
prohibited spending funds for criminal enforcement of BCRA’s electioneering
communication provision (discussed below).26 However, the measure was not
included in companion Senate legislation or the FY2008 consolidated appropriations
law.27
A second House bill, H.R. 2630 (Schiff), would prohibit candidate campaign
committees and leadership PACs from paying candidate spouses for campaign work.
25 CRS Report RS22644, Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An
Overview, by R. Sam Garrett and L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Report RL33814, Public
Financing of Congressional Elections: Background and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett,
provide additional discussion of coordinated party expenditures and public financing of
congressional elections, respectively.
26 H.R. 3093 as passed by the House, Sec. 711.
27 The consolidated appropriations bill is H.R. 2764, which became P.L. 110-161.

---

CRS-7
The bill would also require disclosure of certain payments to other family members.
It would not affect spouses working for other campaigns (e.g., as political
consultants). Another provision in the bill would hold candidates personally liable
for violations of the new restrictions (if they knew violations occurred). That
proposal marks a departure from existing FECA requirements, which largely hold
campaign organizations and treasurers (not candidates) responsible for compliance.28
H.R. 2630 passed the House on July 23, 2007, without a committee hearing. It has
not been considered in the Senate.
Other Recent Developments
Electioneering Communications
BCRA prohibits corporate and union treasury funds from financing political
advertising known as electioneering communications.29 Under BCRA, electioneering
communications are broadcast, cable, or satellite political advertising aired within 30
days of a primary election (or convention or caucus) or 60 days of a general election
(or special or runoff election) that refers to a “clearly identified” federal candidate
and is targeted to the relevant electorate.30 Before BCRA became law, such
advertising was often viewed as thinly veiled electioneering by corporations and
unions, although some observers contended that the advertising reflected sponsors’
policy positions.
On June 25, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Federal
Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL II). 31 In brief, the case
considered whether the electioneering communication provision prohibited the group
Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) from paying for advertising, mentioning a Senate
candidate, it intended to run during the 2004 election cycle . The Court held that the
electioneering communication provision was unconstitutional as applied to the
WRTL ads. Shortly thereafter, the FEC announced that it would revise its
electioneering communications rules.
FEC Rulemaking. The FEC held hearings on its electioneering
communications rulemaking on October 17-18, 2007. 32 The Commission approved
28 2 U.S.C. § 432; 434.
29 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(2).
30 See Title II of BCRA at 116 Stat. 88 and 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(3)(A)(I).
31 For additional detail and a legal analysis of the case, see CRS Report RS22687, The
Constitutionality of Regulating Political Advertisements: An Analysis of Federal Election
Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., by L. Paige Whitaker.
32 The hearings focused on two alternative rules: one that would have allowed corporate and
union-funded electioneering communications but would have maintained FEC reporting and
disclaimer requirements, and another that would have exempted corporate and union-funded
electioneering communications from FEC reporting and disclaimer requirements. On the
two alternative proposals, see Federal Election Commission, “Electioneering
(continued...)

---

CRS-8
final rules in December 2007.33 Although corporate and union treasury funds are
generally prohibited in federal elections, the new rules allow payments for certain
electioneering communications that focus on public policy issues rather than electing
or defeating federal candidates.34 As with other electioneering communications,
certain information about spending on, and donations received for, these
advertisements must be reported to the FEC.35 The advertisements must also contain
disclaimers identifying the person or organization responsible for the electioneering
communication.36
The new rules also require that electioneering communications paid for with
corporate or union treasury funds must meet three “safe harbor” criteria intended to
ensure that the advertising is not directly aimed at electing or defeating candidates.
Specifically, the advertising may not: (1) mention “any election, candidacy, political
party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public” or (2) take a position on
a candidate’s “character, qualifications, or fitness for office.” Third, the
advertisement must either “[focus] on a legislative, executive or judicial matter or
issue,” such as urging the public or candidates to adopt a policy position, or propose
“a commercial transaction” (e.g., an advertisement for a candidate’s business).37
Overall, the new rules permit corporations and unions to fund issue-oriented
advertising in ways that were prohibited by BCRA. For those who view issue
advertising as thinly veiled electoral advocacy, the rules could be seen as a loophole
that allows otherwise prohibited corporate and union money to influence elections
— the same concern that motivated BCRA’s electioneering communications
provision that was held unconstitutional as applied to the WRTL ads. On the other
32 (...continued)
Communications,” 72 Federal Register 50271, August 31, 2007. The hearings also
addressed whether revisions to the electioneering communications rules required changes
to the Commission’s regulations on “express advocacy,” which explicitly calls for election
or defeat of federal candidates. In particular, debate focused on 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b).
33 Federal Election Commission, “Electioneering Communications,” 72 Federal Register
50271, December 26, 2007, p. 72899.
34 Under the new rules, advertising funded by corporate and union treasury funds must be
“susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a
clearly identified Federal candidate,” the same standard the Court articulated in WRTL II.
See ibid., p. 72914.
35 Ibid., pp. 72900-72901; pp. 72911-72913. Under the rules, spending on electioneering
communications that exceeds $10,000 in a calendar year must be reported to the FEC.
Donations exceeding $1,000 to fund such advertising, received since the start of the year
preceding the reporting period, must also be reported.
36 Ibid., pp. 72900-72901; see also 11 C.F.R. 110.11(a). The word “disclaimer” appears as
a term of art in FEC regulations, although its definition in that context generally differs from
the literal one. Rather than renouncing responsibility (as the literal definition of
“disclaimer” implies), disclaimers required by FEC regulations generally signal that the
sponsoring committee was, in fact, responsible for a communication. On the other hand,
disclaimers on communications that are not authorized by principal campaign must note that
candidates were not responsible for the communication.
37 Ibid., p. 72903; p. 72914.

---

CRS-9
hand, the FEC’s explanatory statement accompanying the new rules suggests that
even general references to elections or candidates (e.g., election dates or a party
name) could void the safe harbor protection for corporate and union spending.38 If
the Commission reaches such a determination in future enforcement cases,
electioneering communications funded by corporate or union treasury funds would
have to be strictly related to public policy issues, although they could be aired during
election periods.
Precise implications of the new rules are likely to become clearer over time, as
advertisers test the rules during the 2008 election cycle and beyond and as the FEC
considers future advisory opinions and enforcement cases. Additional litigation,
which has been common following BCRA rulemakings, is also possible. In an
apparent follow-up to WRTL II, Citizens United v. FEC considers whether a movie
about Senator Clinton, and related advertising, can be restricted as an electioneering
communication. The Supreme Court recently received written briefs in that case.
Hearings on Automated Political Calls
Also during the 110th Congress, House and Senate committees have held
hearings on automated political telephone calls (also known as “robo calls” or “auto
calls”). This issue is related to campaign finance because FEC reporting and
disclaimer requirements apply to many such calls. Legislation aimed at restricting
automated political calls also often references or would amend FECA. Another CRS
report provides additional detail.39 Several bills introduced in the 110th Congress
would address automated political calls in some way, but none has been reported
from committee or received floor consideration.
The Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, held an
oversight hearing on automated political calls on December 6, 2007. In addition to
providing background information about automated calls practices, Members and
witnesses at the hearing considered whether, or if, automated calls could be
constitutionally restricted. Some Members also emphasized the value of official
(franked) automated calls to arrange telephone-based town hall meetings. The Senate
Rules and Administration Committee also held a hearing on the calls, and related bill
S. 2624 (Feinstein), on February 27, 2008. Discussion at that hearing emphasized
voter and candidate frustration with the calls, and whether the calls could be
constitutionally restricted.
Conclusion
HLOGA represents the most significant legislative development related to
campaign finance during the 110th Congress. More than 50 other campaign finance
bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress, but few have received major
38 Ibid., p. 72903.
39 CRS report RL34361, Automated Political Telephone Calls (“Robo Calls”) in Federal
Campaigns: Overview and Policy Options, by R. Sam Garrett and Kathleen Ann Ruane.

---

CRS-10
legislative attention. Other significant campaign finance developments have
occurred away from Capitol Hill, particularly at the FEC and in the federal courts.
FEC activity has focused on rulemakings in response to recent congressional
activity, particularly regarding HLOGA. The campaign travel rules are relatively
straightforward and consistent with the new lobbying and ethics law. Those rules,
however, could be clarified by an E&J statement that has yet to be considered. The
bundling and electioneering communications rulemakings (the latter was undertaken
in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in WRTL II) are more complicated and, in
some cases, less clear. Although the proposed bundling rules are consistent with
HLOGA’s content, the many questions and regulatory alternatives posed in the
NPRM suggest that the agency is still considering how to implement that section of
the law. Similarly, although the Commission has already adopted final electioneering
communications rules, what those rules mean in practice will depend on how the
FEC decides to pursue future enforcement and advisory cases. These issues could
also be revisited after additional commissioners take office.
Overall, recent changes in campaign finance policy have been incremental, as
has been the case since FECA became law in the 1970s. Congress generally did not
focus on campaign finance legislation in the immediate aftermath of FECA and
BCRA, perhaps because passing those laws had required substantial momentum that
was difficult to replicate in the short term. That pattern could also hold following
HLOGA, although most of that bill was related to lobbying and ethics rather than
campaign finance. Even if Congress decides not to undertake major legislative
activity on campaign finance in the near future, non-legislative activity is likely to
keep campaign finance before the public and lawmakers. This is particularly true
given the high-profile 2008 elections and heavy spending that has and will
accompany those contests. As 2008 campaigns continue and pending rulemakings
and advisory opinions linger, the FEC’s operating status is likely to become
increasingly prominent. Additional litigation may also continue its path through the
federal courts. These events demonstrate that the evolution of campaign finance
policy occurs not only in Congress, but also at the FEC, in the courts, in other federal
agencies, and, perhaps most of all, in campaigns themselves. As long as those
campaigns continue, Congress will be faced with questions about how to regulate
political money.
crsphpgw

---